Rep. Mo Brooks and the War on Words

Now that the media has had plenty of time to set their collective hair on fire over Representative Mo Brooks’ War on Whites comments, perhaps we can douse some of the flames and perform a bit of haruspicy on the remains. On the surface, this was among the lowest of the low-hanging fruit for the usual list of suspects. Jonathan Capehart — whose Twitter feed is filled with enough instances of the race card to put Hallmark out of business — was quick to define the moment for the tribal Left, describing Mo’s comments as “the surreal notion that whites are under siege by everyone else … worthy of a thousand side-eyes.”

Additional examples abound, and the case can certainly be made that Brooks invited the uproar though a basic failure of media awareness. After all — as Capehart correctly, for once, pointed out — if you can get Laura Ingraham to begin backing away from you and strapping on an asbestos vest, you’ve probably set off a bit larger fireworks display than anticipated. But was the essential argument being put forth by Brooks all that far into the Twilight Zone?

For a bit of a thought experiment, let’s look at some of the core comments from the interview, but substitute a few different words for the forbidden phrase:

This is the liberal playbook, wherein they seek to divide the nation along demographic lines, that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this effort is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things….

And so the Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue. If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big.

If that was the commentary delivered, would Ingraham have taken even a moment’s pause? Would you, as the viewer, have taken issue with the point being made? In short, would anyone who hadn’t seen the show even know that it had taken place?

The underlying message that Brooks was clumsily attempting to get across was an argument which the Republican Party has unsuccessfully been trying to make for at least the last three decades. Lax immigration policies add to a paucity of jobs and downward pressure on wages for everyone, regardless of the demographic pigeonhole they fit into. The same may be truthfully said for the entire raft of fiscal conservative debates which grip the nation, be it tax policy or education. That which is bad for America is bad for all Americans. It’s really not that complicated.

I see what he did as similar to the vet who was being attacked by his home owners association for flying the American flag. The only people who got upset with him were anti-vet and flag haters. This is the same thing in that the only people who jumped on him are the left wingers in the msm, I am repeating myself again, who have been part of the war on whites for a long time. If we look at what has happened to the white population in the last 30 years we will see that they are blamed for any misfortune around the world, they are blamed for minority disfunction for over 200 years, they are not allowed to have any culture because it offends some small ethnic group, they are belittled for trying to defend the borders of our country but in the process are called racists, they are blamed for defending themselves ONLY it it involves a minority, they are not allowed to congregate with other whites if there is any sort of restriction on minorities yet minorities can do so and restric whites from their events and so many more things that whites are either restricted or prevented from doing. Mo got it right and I for one support him!

Leftists from the President on down through the rest of his party, and their friends and allies in the media and academia, have been manufacturing a bogeyman that is white, usually male, usually conservative, usually but not always Christian, who is presumed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, nativist, and whatever else is one of the Left's pejoratives of the moment.

If one happens to be white, or male, one can opt out of this stereotype some of the time---enough, at least, to sometimes have a chance at a job---if one is visibly hipster/homosexual/metrosexual.

The creation and promotion of this stereotype Fantasy Evil Conservative White Man is identical to the creation and promotion of the Fantasy Evil Jew stereotype in 1930s Germany; it is for the purpose of creating a majority coalition by having everyone unite in common hatred of a designated scapegoat.

The war is on the roots and values of our civilization. Whites are a proxy. That one "cannot" respond to the hate by calling it what it is is the same phenomenon in which Israel cannot defend itself without becoming "evil".

The genuine evil is in this Orwellian phenomenon and all the people who use it.

When the left plays the race card, it is an attempt to use projected guilt and shame to silence, and gain political advantage over whites. Many whites in the center and almost all of the whites on the left have been successfully cowed by this race card. As such, they will not rationally encounter center-right principles because they have an EMOTIONAL aversion to the race card stigma.The question is shall the right continue to pursue the Marquess de Queensberry path to lost elections, or come out blazing and speak the truth? Demonization works...or haven't you noticed ?

The representative has opened up the conversation on race relations that our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder says Americans our too cowardly.to have. Sure he didn't intend for any opinion but his too bad for Holder.. Freedom of speech belongs to all, not just him and this representative is right.

The idiots in the Klan and similar groups murdered and terrorized non-white groups claiming a war on whites for decades. While they were defeated, they so completely polluted any discussion of ant-white bigotry we can't even talk about it, even if it's true.

Representative Brooks is correct, and he is also playing into the hands of the enemy because he has spoken a truth before the majority of the people are willing to hear it. He is no less morally correct for doing so.

I think it has more to do with exaggeration. The PC commonly assert this country was built on slavery, yet Minnesota never had slavery and sent two regiments to the Civil War that were torn to pieces. Lynching is also commonly exaggerated. Perhaps less than 4,000 blacks were lynched over 80 years and the great majority in the South. For example the Tuskegee Institute lists 20 lynchings in Oregon, one black. 7 lynchings in 80 years in MN, 3 black. Roughly as many whites have been killed by blacks in the last 7 years as 80 years of lynchings. Context is stripped away and when it is added, such as the African Slave Trade supplying slaves to Europeans on the coast, that itself is called hate-speech and racism.

The best way to attack Democrats and Progressives on the issue of illegal immigration is by reference to class, not race. Remind them that the primary reason for the importation of slave labor is to depress the wages of working Americans. They have no effective response to this approach.

There is nothing wrong with a rhetorical claim about a "war on whites" if you are ready, willing, and able to back it up, it has only been a truism in academia for thirty years or so, they know its true and consider it a good thing. Obama apparently subscribes to it, and therefore so does Holder.

But Republicans have not as a party opposed either legal or illegal immigration in the last fifty years, and that is half of their problem.

--

Looks to me like the trend in these comments is not what you expected, it is?

Claiming a general war on whites is foolhardy. What needs to be done is single out the radical groups that do so and name them. Otherwise a false theme of whites feeling oppressed or actually being oppressed in sent out which harms credibility.

Im a white male, and somewhat successful, and Jewish. Oy! Guess I'm the incarnation of evil, right? Oh, yea, and I'm a conservative. Once the Jews were victums. Actually, its been a rather recurring pattern. Now we are once again the enemy.

While many of the commentors here say the Left is evil, I think the majority of socialistic supporters who vote for democratic politicians are rather weak than evil. They see kids on the border and feel like we have to help, but don't see that helping now makes the problem worse. They see disfunctinal minorities, and remember there was oppression and inequality not that long ago, but succumb to the emotion of wanting to 'make it right' rather than accepting that the only way to improve is to raise the standards of behavior, not make excuses for bad behavior. Unfortunately, most folks don't realize how easily affected their views are by the small but hard core minority who constantly bleat on an on that white success is the enemy. No, its the model to emulate!

No. The evils would like nothing better than a race war, the ultimate crisis. 'White' _is_ a proxy for Western civilization, because, as you say, whites are the authors of Western civilization. The thing is to point out what they are doing and defend the values of Western civilization, which is for all.

If we rise to the bait as 'whites', we are just doing what every other sucker group is doing in this classic divide and conquer civilization.

Actually, you are wrong. Identity matters. Regaining our shared identity will help to ensure that it continues as a going concern on this planet. The Jews are still around because they never gave up their identity.

It's cultural identity that matters, not racial identity. If every "white" mated with another race, "whites" would be gone in a generation, not through genocide but through what racists refer to as "miscegenation".

What matters is civilization, not race. Concern yourself with your race and you have fallen for the same divide and conquer strategy as all the other groups which serve as "identities".

Look after the rights of individuals according to he values of Western Civilization and the "races" will be fine. Concern yourself with the rights of "races" and the values of our civilization will be trampled in the dust.

You can call it "the white man's burden" if you like. We still have to be teachers. :-)

Name me a racial label in the West other than "white" that is actually standing and fighting *for* Western civilization. La Raza? Eric "My People" Holder? The Black Grievance Industry? Luis Gutierrez? The Labour Party in the UK?

No race is fighting for Western civ. There are white Marxists, are there not? Thomas Sowell appears to be on the right side. He's not white.

These Marxists are race-baiting. They want us to respond on behalf of a race, but I respond as a member of civilization. I will call them racists, but I do so on behalf of the values of my civilizaion, not on behalf of my race. I refuse to become tribal. The United States is a union of free individual people into a great nation. It is not a tribe. We defend the rights of individuals, not of tribes. We have advanced far beyond he tribal parts of the world.

If they can force us to switch from defending civilization to defending the white race, they will have won a great victory.

I mean, you are right, none of these groups of people who have assumed a tribal identity are fighting for civilization, but that's because the Marxists have duped them into fighting for their tribe. We must not be so duped, or we will be just another tribe fighting for itself rather than for civilization.

The whole push of the Left has been to deny European Christendom it's shared identity, to demonize it and make European Christendom ashamed of it's shared identity. As if it is something to be ashamed of compared to any other group.

The ONLY way to stop the Left and Muslims is to regain our European Christian mojo. To stand up and say, we have a right to exist and we are not evil and we wont lie down and be trampled on anymore. (Just like the Jews of Israel).

Yes, but do this as Western Christians, or just as Christians, not "white" Christians. Do not go after an anti-white racist because he is of some other identity. Go after him because he is a racist. Go after him, even, because he identifies with some sub-group of the people of our civilization rather than with the civilization (or nation). Even feminists I consider to be anti-social because they identify with women rather than with civilization. Defend civilization's values, not "white" identity. The Marxists very much want to force us to defend "white" identity. We are the last non-tribal group. When we become tribal, they win.

It's not about demonizing other groups. It's about promoting the interests and well being of White (Anglo) European Christians....organizing politically and culturally to the exclusion of Others.

If not now, when? - Hillel

Tribalism is a successful Darwinian strategy. The Marxists dont want us to defend ourselves. They want us to sulk around and apologize and feel deeply guilty about being White European Christians. So they can continue to advance policies designed for the deconstruction of our society and civilization....to be replaced with the Utopian Vision.

The reason why Marxists have been so successful is that they havent met strong opposition and defense of White European Christendom. They are met with guilt ridden acquiescence to their charges and agenda.

I see what he did as similar to the vet who was being attacked by his home owners association for flying the American flag. The only people who got upset with him were anti-vet and flag haters. This is the same thing in that the only people who jumped on him are the left wingers in the msm, I am repeating myself again, who have been part of the war on whites for a long time. If we look at what has happened to the white population in the last 30 years we will see that they are blamed for any misfortune around the world, they are blamed for minority disfunction for over 200 years, they are not allowed to have any culture because it offends some small ethnic group, they are belittled for trying to defend the borders of our country but in the process are called racists, they are blamed for defending themselves ONLY it it involves a minority, they are not allowed to congregate with other whites if there is any sort of restriction on minorities yet minorities can do so and restric whites from their events and so many more things that whites are either restricted or prevented from doing. Mo got it right and I for one support him!

Leftists from the President on down through the rest of his party, and their friends and allies in the media and academia, have been manufacturing a bogeyman that is white, usually male, usually conservative, usually but not always Christian, who is presumed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, nativist, and whatever else is one of the Left's pejoratives of the moment.

If one happens to be white, or male, one can opt out of this stereotype some of the time---enough, at least, to sometimes have a chance at a job---if one is visibly hipster/homosexual/metrosexual.

The creation and promotion of this stereotype Fantasy Evil Conservative White Man is identical to the creation and promotion of the Fantasy Evil Jew stereotype in 1930s Germany; it is for the purpose of creating a majority coalition by having everyone unite in common hatred of a designated scapegoat.